Furthermore, the language and structure of ACIM tend to be criticized to be excessively complex and esoteric. The course's dense and repetitive prose can be difficult to know and read, ultimately causing frustration and misinterpretation among readers. That difficulty can cause a buffer to entry, which makes it problematic for people to fully interact with and benefit from the course. Some experts disagree that the complicated language is really a planned approach to unknown the lack of substantive content and to create an impression of profundity. The problem in comprehending the substance also can result in a dependence on additional teachers and interpreters, further perpetuating the commercialization and possibility of exploitation within the ACIM community.

Moreover, the thought of forgiveness as presented in ACIM has been criticized to be excessively easy and possibly dismissive of real damage and injustice. The class advocates for a questionnaire of forgiveness that requires realizing david hoffmeister  the illusory nature of the observed offense and allowing move of grievances. While this process can be valuable in promoting internal peace and reducing personal putting up with, it might not adequately handle the difficulties of certain conditions, such as abuse or endemic injustice. Critics fight this type of forgiveness is visible as reducing the activities of patients and absolving perpetrators of accountability. This could cause a form of religious bypassing, wherever individuals use religious methods to avoid coping with uncomfortable emotions and difficult realities.

The general worldview presented by ACIM, which highlights the illusory character of the substance world and the pride, may also be problematic. That perception can result in a questionnaire of spiritual escapism, wherever individuals disengage from the bodily earth and its issues in favor of an idealized religious reality. While this may give temporary reduction or even a sense of transcendence, it may also cause a lack of proposal with important aspects of life, such as associations, responsibilities, and social issues. Critics fight that this disengagement can be detrimental to both the individual and culture, because it advances a form of passivity and neglect of real-world problems.

The exclusivity of ACIM is yet another level of contention. The course frequently comes up as an excellent religious course, implying that other spiritual or spiritual traditions are less valid or effective. That exclusivity may foster an expression of religious elitism among adherents and produce department rather than unity. It also limits the prospect of persons to bring on a varied selection of religious assets and traditions within their particular growth and healing. Authorities argue a more inclusive and integrative method of spirituality will be more beneficial and less divisive.